Vernonia+School+Dist.+47J+v.+Acton

Michael Mooney Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 US 646 - Supreme Court 1995 Drug use was becoming a growing issue in the Vernonia School District 47J. Children openly discussed the use of drugs, behaviors in the schools were on a down turn and referrals were increased dramatically for out of line students. The school board decided, after due process, diligence, and research to implement a drug testing plan on its student athletes. The proposal was even open for discussion at a community meeting where parents could question and raise any concerns about the program. It was unanimously voted in favor of using. One child’s parents, after trying to sign up their son for football, disagreed with the policy, stating that this was an invasion of privacy and a violation of the child’s rights. The parents argued that the policy violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I and 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The parents filed suit against the school district. The District Court ruled in favor of the school district denying the claims on the merits and dismissing the action. 796 F. Supp., at 1355. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the holding, saying the Policy did violate both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Article I and 9, of the Oregon Constitution. 23 F. 3d 1514 (1994). The courts agreed with the District Court and overturned the decision of the Court of Appeals giving the ultimate victory to the Vernonia School District 47J. The Supreme Court looked at both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment arguments in great detail; the true rationale behind the decision, however, was that the person and people involved were children. The court argued that in the present case, the fact that the subjects of the Policy are (1) children and (2) have been committed to the temporary custody of the State as schoolmaster. The duty of the school is an extension of the parent; to care for the child and keep the peace and a suitable environment. The children, due to this fact do not have the same rights as the public at large and therefore can not have those right infringed upon. According to //Goss// v. //Lopez,// 419 U. S. 565, 581-582 (1975) the nature of those rights is what is appropriate for children in school. The final argument singled out the student athlete. These particular students have even less privacy than the non athlete student. The courts cited the cases // Skinner, // 489 U. S., at 627 and // United States // v. //Biswell,// 406 U. S. 311, 316 (1972) saying students who voluntarily participate in school athletics have reason to expect intrusions upon normal rights and privileges, including privacy. The impact on teaching should be minimal on a case like this. The need for it to even reach as far as the Supreme Court seems absurd. A teacher knows, through rulings like this, that they have the power and the legal backing to provide a safe environment for the children in their care. The need for drug testing, especially at the age of young children, can be disheartening to an educator. The teachers and even the schools are given such responsibility to care and educate the students and thanks to the courts ruling in favor of the programs they implement, the schools can feel confident they are accomplishing those goals. ** Question: ** Do school children have the same degree of rights afforded to the public at large in regards to privacy, search, and seizure? Explain.
 * Background: **
 * Decision and Rationale: **
 * Impact on Teaching: **

_

Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton 515 US 646 Supreme Court 1995  Background: Vernonia School District 47J began to have a drug abuse. The schools disciplinary referrals were shot through the roof. The School District 47J adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy which authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of students who participate in the District’s school athletics programs. There was an open discussion meeting at which parents could express their opinion and also ask questions. When it came to voting, the decision was unanimous.

Rationale: The courts were in agreement with the District Court and overruled the Court of Appeals decision. After looking at the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment arguments, they came to the conclusion that the people involved were students. The courts said the reason they came to the conclusion is because they are students and also because they have been committed to the temporary custody of the State as schoolmaster. Impact: This is a very important topic for teachers to understand. If teachers see any sign of drug abuse they need to know to report it immediately. If it’s not reported, it could soon escalate to a problem such as the one in this case. It shouldn’t be taken this far. As teachers, try and postpone problems before they escalate to the max. Question: Why do you think it was unanimous in voting? Megan Good

Jessica Oliver  **VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 47J v. Acton **

Argued March 28, 1995 Decided June 26, 1995.  Background:   In the late 1980’s in Vernonia, Oregon School officials witnessed a sharp increase in drug use among students. Upon investigation it was discovered that many of the athletes were leaders in the drug use arena. Coaches began suspecting the impairment of the students thinking and functioning was due to drugs and alcohol. They reported numerous injuries that they believed would not have occurred if drugs were not involved. School administrators attempted to deter the popularity of drugs by bringing in speakers, having presentations, and offering classes on topics revolving around drugs and alcohol. Drug- sniffing dogs also searched the schools on a periodic basis.  To their dismay, the previous steps were ineffectual in stopping the problems the students were facing. The school board called for a parent assembly to discuss options for dealing with the drug issue. The parents voted unanimously to implement the Student Athlete Drug Policy. The purpose of this drug testing for all school athletes was to prevent drug use, protect their health and safety, and provide drug users with rehabilitation programs.  In 1991, John Acton, a seventh grader at the time, tried out for the football team. John was denied eligibility to play due to the unwillingness of John and his parents to sign a waiver for the drug testing. They claimed that mandatory drug testing for students violated their fourth and fourteenth amendment rights, as well as Article 1, Section 9 in the Oregon constitution. As in // __Skinner, supra, at 619,__ // which ruled “reasonable” search would require a warrant, the Actons felt as if drug testing in the schools did not constitute a reasonable search or the means for a warrant.  Decision and Rationale:   Originally, the District Court ruled in favor of the Vernonia School System. This ruling was overturned by the 9th district United States Court of Appeals. The fourth amendment requires that any search must follow a reasonable idea for the search to occur by a government official. After a reasonable search is akcowledged, then a warrant must first be issued. The courts felt as if the requirement of a warrant would interfere with the disciplinary actions of the school administrators. __T.L.O. 469 U.S..at 340.341__. This case also stated that requiring schools to obtain warrants would undermine "the substantial need of teachers and administrators for freedom to maintain order in the schools."  Impact on Teaching:  <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> This case established the lengths to which schools are allowed to go to prevent students from using drugs. Students cannot be drug tested just to play sports, but the other methods of preventing drug use are still possible. Although the results may not be as effective in preventing drug abuse problems, the classes open the door for some students to seek a better lifestyle away from drugs and alcohol. Teachers and school administrators also need to be made more aware of the signs of drug use among students. School employees can learn to recognize signs and therefore prevent students from staying in class to disrupt others, and more importantly, remove them from any physical sports activity. Suspensions and offers of help are still ways to impose a no tolerance policy without the method of drug testing. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Question: <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Brainstorm other ideas that schools can enforce to help prevent drug use among its students. List them below.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">United States Supreme Court **<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">